Case Summaries – Page 357 – Electronic Discovery Law

Charles O. Bradley Trust v. Zenith Capital LLC, 2006 WL 798991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Finding that requested documents were relevant and properly discoverable, court granted motion to compel production of various financial records, including an electronic copy of party’s Quickbooks files, and ordered that the records be produced under protective order in a form agreed to by the parties

Nature of Case: Securities fraud, unfair business practices, breach of contract

Electronic Data Involved: Electronic copy of Quickbooks files

Pure-Flo MPC, LLC v. Bio Fab Techs., Inc., 2006 WL 1389115 (E.D. Wis. May 12, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied plaintiff’s motion for accelerated discovery and immediate inspection and copying of defendants’ computers by computer forensic specialist designated by plaintiff, since plaintiff had not yet filed its preliminary injunction motion: ?The Court will not accelerate and expand discovery beyond the parameters annunciated in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure so as to help the parties prepare for an evidentiary hearing that may never take place.?

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email, confidential business information

Delta Fin. Corp. v. Morrison, 819 N.Y.S.2d 908 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court ordered party to conduct additional searches of data restored from backup tapes, and to restore and search a sample of additional backup tapes, shifting all initial costs to the requesting party; court further directed producing party to prepare an affidavit detailing the number of responsive documents found and the costs and expenses associated with the processes, including but not limited to attorneys fees for privilege review, which would assist the court in determining whether a full search would be necessary and whether further cost-shifting was warranted

Nature of Case: Fraud and breach of contract claims

Electronic Data Involved: Email and non-email electronic documents restored from backup tapes

Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 2135798 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In follow-up to earlier decision awarding sanctions for discovery failings (Phoenix Four, Inc. v. Strategic Res. Corp., 2006 WL 1409413 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2006)), court awarded Phoenix its attorney’s fees and costs associated with bringing the motion for sanctions in the amount of $45,162, to be paid equally by the SRC Defendants and their law firm; court further ruled that the SRC Defendants’ share ?may not be borne by their insurance carriers?

Nature of Case: Investment company sued former advisor for breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation

Electronic Data Involved: Computer hard drives and servers

Jordan v. Dillards, Inc., 2006 WL 2873472 (D. Kan. Oct. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Defendant’s motion to compel production of plaintiff’s hard drive for inspection denied, since defendant “provided no justification for so broad or invasive a request” and there was no showing that the request was reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence

Nature of Case: Employment litigation

Electronic Data Involved: Plaintiff’s hard drive

Goldman v. Healthcare Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 2006 WL 3589065 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for sanctions based on spoliation of evidence, concluding that, although defendants may have been negligent in their deletion of lines of source code, the record did not support a finding of bad faith or prejudice

Nature of Case: Unfair competition

Electronic Data Involved: Source code

Ryan v. Staten Island Univ. Hosp., 2006 WL 3497875 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant failed to timely disclose that it was withholding certain information from production and defense counsel made representations several times to plaintiff and to court that she had provided full and complete discovery, court: (1) granted motion to compel production of database in hard copy and in electronic form with specific redactions noted and included in revised privilege log; (2) extended discovery cut-off date; and (3) awarded sanctions solely against defense counsel (and not client) for costs of motion

Nature of Case: Fraud and medical malpractice

Electronic Data Involved: Database

Durdin v. Kuryakyn Holdings, Inc., 2006 WL 6040466 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 7, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Where defendant never attempted to preserve email related to disputed products, did not impose email preservation directive and did not suspend policy of destroying all email after 30 days, but asserted that no relevant email was destroyed because its employees never exchanged emails on topics relevant to lawsuit, court declined to enter default judgment absent stronger proof of bad faith intent and reserved decision on adverse inference instruction; court would allow parties to explore with witnesses at trial whether they exchanged and then destroyed relevant email

Nature of Case: Patent infringement

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Super Group Packaging & Distrib. Corp. v. Smurfit Stone Container Corp., 2006 WL 274779 (W.D. Wis. Jan. 27, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: In court’s decision ruling on parties’ respective post-trial motions, court affirmed its prior determination that defendants did not use reasonable efforts to locate responsive emails or provide them to plaintiff, and granted plaintiff’s motion to award $11,310 in sanctions representing plaintiff’s costs and fees expended on the discovery dispute

Nature of Case: Breach of contract, unjust enrichment and related torts

Electronic Data Involved: Email

Select Med. Corp. v. Hardaway, 2006 WL 859741 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 24, 2006)

Dec 01 2006

Key Insight: Court denied motion for spoliation inference based upon former employee’s deletion of files on home computer, since plaintiff could not demonstrate any prejudice resulting from alleged spoliation or show that former employee was “at fault” for deleting the files, i.e., that he intended to impair plaintiff’s ability to uncover evidence; employee claimed to have deleted the files to ensure that he no longer had access to plaintiff’s information after he resigned his employment

Nature of Case: Misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of non-competition agreement

Electronic Data Involved: Files on former employee’s home computer

Catagory:Case Summaries